Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
despicable murdering cunts
there's some pretty big Swedes in the convoy
they want to expel all israeli diplomats
I wonder what Obama will say. not a lot probably.
wasn't the whole 'nuclear-free Middle East' summit his idea that the Israelis recently shat on?
It's things like this that will be the true test of whether or not he was the bright shining light of change that everyone seemed to think he'd be.
This is the perfect opportunity for him to prove himself. He won't take it. Mark my words.
the only way he can avoid mentioning it is if one of them calls off the meeting - which I think is probably quite likely
It's a pretty naive person who would ever believe that the USA will ever shift their position on Israel one inch.
I just wanted to say it too
and what point did this seem a good idea to them and surely we cannot just let this pass?
suggests it wasn't really as simple as the media are portraying, no? I don't doubt that many aspects of Israeli policy is at best morally dubious, but there's sense in it regardless of approval. If you fight against the military, people are going to die. If you don't want people to die, don't attack them...
before assuming that the diddums Israeli Army was simply defending itself from potentially lethal aggression
was indiscriminately slaughtering the poor morally-flawless 'protesters', k?
We shall see...
clarification on Israeli actions though. Nothing I love quite so much as wildly different standards for two opposing groups meaning that one can never, ever win.
But please feel free to contradict the virtually unanimous worldwide news reporting of events if you know something they don't.
knowing the facts, would they? They have such a great record in that area, after all.
That Israeli troops went on board. That they fired shots and tried to gain control. That some 'protesters' decided to fight them. That some people on board died.
if only I had a gun.
"Thanks to these heroes from other countries who showed their solidarity with Gaza, the Israeli siege is now an international issue and we consider that the occupiers, through this crime, are the ones under siege now."
If anyone believes that there weren't a significant number of people on board who saw it as an excellent opportunity to gain international sympathy etc, then they're kind of naive.
also seem slightly misplaced, given their own record on various matters.
Still, it's all very sad. Personally I just wish everyone involved in the Gaza/Palestine/Israel situation could just be a bit less cunty to everyone else.
but then you'd think israel would have more sense than to board boats full of tv cameras and international activists in international waters
Egypt offered to take the delivery and transport it overland. If they'd have done that, there's nothing that the Israeli army could have done, but they would have claimed (as they always do), that any aid being channelled through Egypt is being controlled by Hamas and supplemented with weapons on its way through.
Taking it in by boat directly means that the existance of Israel's illegal blockade, and interception of vessels in international waters could be highlighted.
How on earth Isreal thought that anything good could have possibly come of this, I don't know. It's almost enough to make one think that after being slapped down by the US over settlements and the US proposal of a nuclear-free middle east, they are deliberately trying to whip up the arab nations in an effort to provoke the US into being forced to pick a side.
Desperate people turn to desparate measures innit.
It'd be "kind of naive", at the very least, to think otherwise.
those on the flotilla clearly jumped at the chance to be shot dead, and danielkelly i guess they were just being 'cunty' to everyone else...
you absolute nutter
But jump at the chance to cause others to die for the cause, probably. To cause chaos and make Israel look as bad as possible, pretty obviously. Maybe some of them were okay with it for themselves too. That's usually the Hamas line on things.
They were carrying materials that could be used for making weapons. I'm not saying that it was justified, but it could be considered potentially harmful.
I'm not saying that it was the intention. Of course I can't say that. I disapprove of what happened. However there wouldn't have been deaths if the people onboard hadn't fought the Israeli military.
Hmmm. Interesting use of language.
I wish, somewhat naively I know, that the people in that region could find a way to get along with eachother. It's probably the least controversial thing anyone could say ...
the way you put it seemed to imply that those on the flotilla delivering aid were equally engaged in the 'cunty'-ness
and you'll be pounced upon.
saved those 10 soldiers downtime
"The EU are launching an inquiry. We don't need an inquiry! We know what they've done!"
and the actions of some of the people on board and the reactionary groups who are reveling in the situation right now.
Yeah, balance, rationality, and refusing to make judgements about things that aren't known - obviously a troll, right?
she's doing it in a cool way though, youre doing it in a way that is both fat and gay
This guy seems an interesting take on that:
"Northern branch - No recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist, with the ultimate goal of it being replaced by an Islamic state. Readiness to make use of its institutions to satisfy immediate needs."
As well as promoting Sharia law and combating western forces such as feminism. Sounds like a reasonable guy, right? Bet he'd never justify the deaths of innocent people... oh.
His presence on the ship obviously doesn't prove the ships attacked anyone first though, or even that it wasn't a humanitarian effort (just because an extremist is involved with something doesn't in itself make it extremist).
Ultimately the Israeli army has killed ten civilians and it does seem on the face of it an appalling act that is hard to justify in terms of reasonable force. You can't shoot someone just because they have dodgy opinions.
For what it's worth I kind of agree with you (in that I don't think we should accept at face value that it was a black-and-white case of the evil Israelis murdering good and kind civilians) but the International community should establish what happened and, if appropriate, prosecute for war crimes. But obviously the enquiry is the right thing to do first and the people pushing for prosecution without an investigation are no better than the people who march for accused sex abusers to be lynched before anyone knows what the evidence is.
I guess I phrased it a little badly. But the popular message seems to have been that these were peaceful aid workers and not extremists, which already doesn't really seem to stand up. It doesn't automatically mean anything, but for anyone who really thought all the people on board were morally-sound peaceful freedom campaigners, which strangely seems to be most, then this should be noted.
I said that it puts into major doubt claims that the ship was populated by morally-sound peace campaigners, as people seem to like suggesting. And that's one person known of - out of what, a handful? Quite possible that there were far more on board, which might not justify action, but makes it much more of a grey area.
There were some provocative folk on board.
But were they armed? And if they were, did they kick of first?
Israel are by far the more powerful part of this whole shitty equation. With power comes responsibility. But Israel just don't seem to be able to handle that responsibility.
This doesn't mean that folk should be able to get away with endlessly prokoking 'em without any kind of comeback. But, as I said above, desperate people turn to desparate measures innit.
as in: Open fire. Proper Israeli boat damaging fire. Not just a couple of rounds from a pistol or an AK. News reports at the moment are mentioning "knives and clubs".
At the moment we don't know if they were armed or kicked off first. Israel claims yes to both, the people on the boats say no to both.
My own view is that, even if they were armed and kicked off first, it's pretty unlikely that a civilian aid ship was anywhere near as armed as an army squadron and even if the Israeli army were attacked first they should have contained the situation without this many deaths. But at the moment the international authorities just need to establish who did what and why.
that most of the deaths were attributable to the Israeli military, even that isn't known for sure. There are reports of people on board taking guns off troops and opening fire, for example. True? Maybe not. Possible? Yes.
And please do note the use of the word "possible". But, yes, that sounds like EXACTLY the sort of thing that Hamas would do. It was always known that the ship would be intercepted by the Israeli military.
But you, love, are off in cloud cuckoo land
Some of the video action seems to suggest it, as well as reports from both sides. Also, why would Israel have any other aim than to take control of the ship, get it to Israeli port, deport people etc? The last thing Israel wanted was deaths, it was always going to look terrible however strong the action from the other sides.
they should surely also have done it in Israeli waters.
It seems fairly inexplicable, sure. But I don't think that counters my point in any way.
wikipedia = why we're probably all fucked.
why the hell wouldn't he promote Sharia, given he's a fucking muslim? Same with criticising feminism. So what? its legal to do both in this country.
Don't really know where to start to be honest. You must be "trolling" right? right.
on selected footage than look anything up. Crazy. There doesn't seem to be much doubt who this guy was. People have said extremists weren't aboard. Well at least one was. People have said there were no links to Hamas. This guy has links to Hamas.
I have no problem with people criticising Israel. I do have a problem with people saying whatever they like regardless of truthfulness because it suits their view.
so what if he was on the boat? Hamas are in charge of Gaza and in eyes of Palestinians, represent their struggle for autonomy. Who cares if "extremists" were aboard? With that logic, you could condone a palestinian hit on a zionist. It doesn't make sense.
in any way what-so-ever.
but it has to be said that every self-professed Zionist I've met has been a pretty scary individual with disturbing views. That's a generalisation of course but anyone demanding sole access to "Zion" is less likely to accept a negotiated solution to the problem.
it completely is in principal. If you aren't religious, I don't understand how you can take the zionists claim to sovereignty seriously. The idea of "Israel" as somehow inherently Jewish is completely extremist relative to the people that were already living there and whats happening to them right now.
completely extremist in relation to (Rabbinic) Jewish history for the past 2000 years.
Sharia is totally not extreme at all :-\
I mean I don't think either of them are necessarily proof of extremism but prof-kitsch appears to believe that a religious desire to force your religion's own laws on everyone in a region (which is effectively governing a region) is different depenidng on which religion we're talking about.
But, as I say, this is a slight tangent from the point I was making.
Anyone who sees that as an equal balanced struggle is obviously completely wrong.
I'm just saying the desire to impose a Zionist state on people regardless of their consent and the desire to impose a Sharia system of laws on people without their consent have some similarities and it's odd to see one as definitely extremist and the other as definitely not extremist.
But the fact is not everyone who believed the Jewish should have had their own country in 1948 was an extremist. Or even Jewish for that matter. But they were, in the strictest sense, promoting Zionism.
And I wouldn't necessarily think that anyone who supported the existence of a Jewish state of Israel was an extremist, even if I thnk it was an utterly misguided policy that created an utter fucking mess.
I could see what PocketMouse's was but I'm not really clear what you're trying to say?
On the face of it your post is way more troll-y than PocketMouse's.
Pocketmouse is trying to use the fact that this dude promoted sharia as leverage. Which is stupid, considering the guy is Muslim.
Reminds me why I stay out of political threads on DiS.
How's that not trolling exactly?
By posting about an "extremist", she's inferred that the Israeli's somehow have the moral ground over the palestinians, which is definitely a sack of shit. Doesn't even matter since the ship was in international waters.
Congratulations on condoning the murder of at least 10 human beings by association though.
Fuck off and stop trolling.
At least in some areas Israel -does- have the moral high ground. In others, as I've said in this very thread, they are at best morally dubious. But in that sense, the exact same goes to Palestine and Hamas.
It doesn't justify it as I say above but the presence of someone with links to extremist groups with a desire to end the Israeli state has to shed a different light on claims this was a politically neutral convoy.
It obviously doesn't mean that Israel were attacked, or that if they were their response was appropriate, but it does raise questions that need to be clarified to understand exactly what happened in exactly the same way as I'm sure most people would feel there were unanswered questions if there was, say, an American general present in Israel when the attack was sanctioned.
I can't see how anyone looking at this objectively can't regard it as relevant to getting the full picture.
neither side would want it.
Israel did offer citizenship to a considerable number of palestinians in 1967, most turned it down.
they are hardly the only practioners of apartheid in the middle east
Palestinians aren't Israeli's though so your assertion that it is undemocratic for Israel to not offer them rights is a bit weird.
Have a go at them for things they actually deserve
"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;"
from the San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
it's a very delicate situation but i think israel have been allowed to act abit cunty for too long now. it's interesting/ironic to see how world war 1 & 2 + the post war decisions taken have come back to haunt us to this day (creation of israel and north/south korea divide)
or see it as an opportunity for casualties to make Israel look worse.
If the video is legit (which it seems to be):
What do you make of that?
But prima facie, this is at least very bad and extremely stupid. In international waters...
an ancient Muslim military victory over them, and that "the army of Mohammed is returning." I think that casts some doubt on the claims that they were completely peaceful humanitarian activists.
are singing a song about ethnically cleansing the (near) middle east in the name of white european purity and supremacy. I think that casts some doubt on any idea that they might be 'innocent' children.
There's absolutely no difference between then two. None. At all.
I don't think I've used "moron" yet in this thread. Can I now?
LOOK THE PROTESTERS ARE CLEARLY EVIL TERRORISTS AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY'RE SINGING A SONG!!!11!!11
You don't see any difference in context?
This time, it's personal!
including one being thrown from the top deck to the bottom, and others apparently on the floor and being beaten with bars or sticks...
... and an Israeli account of what happened.
That first video is very chaotic. Despite the labels and circles I couldn't quite make out what was going on.
And ever since that Wikileaks video of the American helicopter gunship in Baghdad I've been wary of external sources with an interest in maintaining one version of the story being the ones who label the videos. That Wikileaks video was very nastily edited to make a morally grey area appear black and white.
But still, I like that we now live in a world where events like this can be expected to be recorded. It's so much harder for governments to pull off another Gulf of Tonkin.
im just interested to know theyre thinking behind this?
Best of 3, yeah?
just answer the goddam question
as ive already proved im not literate in any way
plus im tired and trying to give up smoking
AND call of duty isnt working now
things are not good
why wont it work?
Whether you agree with it or not is up to you. But my post was nothing more that.
intended for houses, schools and hospitals for creating bunkers.
He was very keen to point out that no one got shot on the other five boats, so they must have been doing something right.
"On the first boat, no one died... On the second boat, no one died..."
firing at the people on board as some are suggesting. That this particular ship seemed to have more links with extremists than actual aid workers, as already shown. I think that's a perfectly fair point to make.
If you look at what makes a blockade legal, Israel have a pretty good case to make there. And if it is legal, then the San Remo Manual (I've already posted about that) justifies the action on international waters and makes it legal. So the international waters isn't especially relevant to it.
Feel free to let me know if there's an absolute ruling anywhere though.
now it's everywhere
You've made some fair points in this thread, but it's all coming across as if you should've declared an interest with regard to this whole shebang.
Anything you wanna declare, so's we can put a little perspective on things?
Previous fervent defending of stuff like this usually invites some sort of explanation as to why the person is so het up by it.
Otherwise I woulda asked that specifically.
Regardless, looks like I might've unwittingly crossed a line here somehow.
and was looking for some rationale for it.
P'raps I shouldn't be surprised about a snafu thread when it's about this whole clusterfuck of a situation.
I'll refer you to my 12:05 reply to V_G_W.
Really? If you really can't see her "rationale," it was that we should seek a less shallow understanding of this event than the simple explanation that Israel is purely evil and that it was entirely gratuitous. She's made nothing but balanced, reasoned points here, doesn't even appear to have a pro-Israel agenda and made almost no judgement on the rightness or proportionality of what happened.
I never get why everyone on here suddenly becomes really thick when PocketMouse is around.
and I can't entirely agree.
But as far as this thread is concerned, I'm gonna sit back and just read from now on, unless anyone really wants to prokoke me into further contributions. Which seems unlikely.
since you've provided no fresh evidence of PocketMouse in any way condoning these killings. Because there is none.
and not the motives of the Israelis. Clearly.
I don't think THESE PARTICULAR people should in these circumstances have *attacked* the Israelis, *if* that's what happened. If I was protesting, I would be pretty pissed off if the guy next to me fired on police.
that people 'make things sound like' something. I don't see that it's fair or right to put the onus on PocketMouse when it will be just as much your (and not your as in you specifically, _vikram) take on the situation that will influence how you read something. It's like earlier in this thread when someone thought my 'I wish everyone could just get along' post implied that I was glad dirty protesters were shot. Sometimes people seem to willfully infer things that are actually a bit of a stretch.
But anyway, we digress ...
by being on the ship, does that really have any bearing on how rational it was for them to immediately resort to violence?
You might understand why they would resort to violence. But it does not justify endangering the lives of other innocent people (if that is what happened).
that's open to interpretation. You're too closely equating boarding boats with unequivicol threats of immediate violence. We don't know who used violence or threats first. We also don't know if the protestors made such a warning to the IDF. It certainly can't be implied.
"it just seems like if you are not obedient then it's your own fault for whatever happens."
You would be partly respsonsible for what happened if you were acting unreasonably or uncontrollably. Whether it was entirely your fault, or caused by a wrongful act of the IDF would depend entirely on the facts. Which we don't know.
10 dead plus 60 injured = a lot of bullets
and to speculate; for that many dead and injured either the helicopter engaged or the soldiers on board went on a spree
self-defence is one thing, a massacre is quite another
and that is Israel's style. It was a massacre. But events leading up to it matter, a lot.
please just stop making unfounded assertions.
Of course boarding the boat was unreasonable. That doesn't neceassirily mean everything that happened after it was neither legal or compounded by contributory act by the protestors.
you just wanted to use hyperbole?
as it's derived from the legal meaning.
nooooooooooooo. It's an issue of proportionality. You can infringe rights etc. *if* it's proportionate/ not excessive to what the purpose is. National security pretty much trumps everything like this. Same in the UK.
They do let in just enough aid to keep Gaza going, although it's shamefully little. Looks pretty legal, unfortunately.
Even if it was "illegal," it would not be criminal, that's ridiculous.
was being allowed in.
as I said, national security is seen as paramount, unless it's like people starving to death and stuff I guess.
but if armed police suddenly raided my house (without a warrant) and shouted stop! I wouldn't run. They still had choice.
Your comments about Israeli soldiers...
Do you want me to list hundreds of wars where young conscripts have chosen to fight and kill the enemy (who may be a GOODIE)?
Terrible things can happen under the guise of legality in international public law, and have done. In temrs of the moral soundness of a war, it's not actually that much of an issue, especially given the state of the UN.
You're basically saying they should act in a way that, if followed by others, would dissolve the existence of any Israeli military. You're effectively denying the fact that sometimes, occasionally, Israel does act in self defence.
You're gf - why didn't she just register her protest appropriately? She wanted to try herion? yeah.
which I guess is kind of key to this whole thing. If "international waters" extends all the way to the coastline, how could they possibly have stopped the flotilla before it got into port without it being in international waters?
The West Bank has some territory in the Dead Sea I'm sure, but none of the Med is part of the Gaza Strip.
"legitimate" is just as vague and still depends on subtle moral judgements in grey areas.
you're just saying they ought to have some waters, and that's very well, but it's not their territory. nor is it israel's. It's not even a case of being allowed to control your own waters. They just have no waters.
Because... Ireland is a sovereign state and is not run by people who want to wipe the UK off the face of the Earth and we are not in conflict with them.
If it was, of course we would have the right to do that if required. Are you actually saying we wouldn't?
I've done no research on this.
I think she realises that their "status" as protestors shouldn't afford them any sort of immunity from what they would otherwise be culpable for. I pretty much agree with that.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
with your overlong responses and getting into an argument about something that is purely a matter of taste. She has unusual tastes of what is nice and what is revolting. Her point was that it seems to her viscerally wrong to do it, and not that we're all disgusting for drinking it. That's it.
Go talk to yourself in the mirror.
It looks like it's been made pretty clear elsewhere but I just want to add- what a crappy post.
if you're a Jew then your views are automatically discounted, and if you're not a Jew you have no business saying anything but Israel = evil.
By the Israeli military, absolutely, but also by the 'aid workers' and media.
Doesn't make them any less dangerous. The media might not have guns, but they sure as hell have more power, and they're using it typically irresponsibly.
it's less concentrated, sure. But there's definitely more measurable power in the media.
I think it's one thing for a bunch of cowboys in a flotilla to be handling things terribly, but something else for highly trained special forces and the government itself to be handling things terribly.
they went quite openly to make a) a political point of protest,b) a show of solidarity and c) to deliver essential materials being denied to the Gaza strip population under the Israeli blockade
for this at least 10 of them have been killed, 50 or 60 injured and ALL 700 or so arrested
they have also no doubt been stripped of any evidence that might contradict the IDF version of events and have in any case had a communication blackout imposed on them (no contact with embassies, foreign ministries, red cross/crescent, etc.)
It's simply not right
They acted knowing what would happen and sought to take advantage of it.
Oh wait, am I assuming too much there.
Just, you seem to know a remarkable amount about who these people were, what their aims were, what they did, and what has happened to them since. Quite a lot of which seems to be contradicted by things posted in this thread.
I've seen the video where the boat jumps up into the air and attacks the Israeli helicopter - oh wait, what was the link again?
Yes, they attacked the military as a deliberate attempt to defame the good name of the Israeli Defence Force. That is why they were sailing in Israeli waters at the time. They were armed to the teeth, the journalists included, and were willing to die to realise this goal, as they had all been brainwashed by Hamas operatives working undercover in Turkey. Definitely what didn't happen was a panicky attempt at self-defence by naive civilians, to which the IDF responded to with the type of discriminating tact and subtlety shown towards naive civilians for which they have become world famed.
Do you ever listen to yourself?
but also ;_; at everything and the whole world/internet
but any military force that thinks it's competant should really have trained for the kind of reaction you're likely to get when you send an armed gunman down a rope from a helicopter into the middle of a crowd in the middle of the night.
From the very first post:
"This was always going to be a high-risk operation for Israel both in terms of reputation and diplomatic repercussions.
Taking over vessels at sea is no easy task, even if the units carrying out the mission are well-trained, and it is especially difficult if the people already on board the vessels resist."
Furthermore: "The six-ship flotilla, carrying 10,000 tonnes of aid, left the coast of Cyprus on Sunday and had been due to arrive in Gaza on Monday. Israel had REPEATEDLY [emphasis mine] said the boats would not be allowed to reach Gaza."
Interesting that in the couple of hundred posts on this thread, I can't see anyone who thought to note that even without the blockade, since when did ANY state just allow a ship, plane or individual to just saunter into its territory like it owned the place? If a Boeing just appeared out of nowhere above Heathrow, sending out a brief message demanding use of a runway, if it didn't get immediately shot down, you can bet that soldiers would be involved nonetheless.
P.S. Again with this?!
Israel is recognised as legitimate by the rest of the world, apart from a few nutcases. Naval blockades are perfectly legal in most circumstances. Who can render it criminal? You? William Hague? That's a great idea. I'm gonna write to him and storm the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/10202105.stm
NB anyone who is going to use their own "definition" of legitimacy, save your breath.
The blockade is around Gaza, which is not included within these boundaries.
is not so much outrage that the boats were stopped, but more that it involved killing a bunch of people. Was that really necessary?
Until you can establish the facts, we don't know why they were killed. We'll probably never know. Any inquiry is probably going to be a whitewash, and as everyone's said, the evidence has been confiscated and might well be destroyed.
All we know is that the IDF boarding the ship, with whatever intention or motives, was likely to break out into violence. They need a pretty amazing reason to justify it. I really doubt they have one.
Your analogy with the plane doesn't quite fit. A closer, but still not directly comparable one would be: if a plane had been very publically loaded up with supplies in another country, and had repeatedly stated its intention to land in Dublin, but the UK government suspected that it was being used to carry weapons to Republican dissidents for use in Belfast, would the UK intercept it before it landed?
Again with the whole Israel vs Palestine Never-ending Saga.
And my analogy is better because like Gaza, Heathrow airport is a region the UK government regards as coming under the UK's national security purview - and therefore is the only authority as regards its use by anyone.
Ireland on the other hand, is a sovereign state and regardless of the UK's suspicions over whether materials in Dublin will be used for nefarious ends in Belfast - the question of whether a plane lands in Dublin or not is at the very least, down to negotiation between states - not fiat by one authority. Gaza is not a sovereign state - it is an area Israel allows a party to govern, but as far as national security goes, Gaza is as part of Israel as any other.
If the ships had stated their intention to dock in Egypt - well then that would be a different story.
and cargo upon landing, carry out a thorough search of the cargo whilst having any and all personnel involved taken into custody for questioning.
No one has to die.
Same situation applies with the flotilla. No one had to die.
The situation could have been handled much better, but the IDF have a history of hysterical and violent over-reaction, often involving the disproportionate and unfortunate deaths of civilians, aid workers and protesters.
The boats could have easily been escorted into Israeli waters where the cargo could have been checked, the protesters could have been detained until their passports etc had been verified, with any suspect protesters being held for further questioning.
After all that, they could have let the flotilla continue on its journey into Gaza. All of this would have resulted in 0 deaths, perhaps a few minor injuries (to be expected), good PR for Israel and the IDF and a lot of happy Gazzas who are then able to get medical treatemtn and clean water.
Did that happen though?
when the violence started.
I personally believe Isreal should exist in some way and I dont really think this opinion should be seen solely the preserve of extremists.
Anybody know how our wars are going?
There's a whole book...
1) And lo, it came to pass that in the land of Israel, a great train of ships came forth from the sea, promising the people of Gaz-ah food and riches from the land of the Hitt-ites.
2) And the king of the Israelites, who is called Ben-jamin, was much vexed, saying that this great train will never reach the land of Gaz-ah - that the Hitt-ites are not to be trusted, for they are in league with the ones known as Hez-bol-lah.
3) Amongst the Gazans there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. "We are in need of the goods from the train!" they wailed. "We shall surely die without!"
4) The king pondered the situation very carefully and after a long consultation with his ministers decided the best course of action was some smiting.
5) For lo, has it not been said in the holy book of National Security that "Smiting: It is the only language these people understand"?
6) This they said unto each other, and unto the Broadcasting Corporation that is British, and even unto the News that is FOX, which reporteth whilst you decide.
7) And so the children of Israel went unto the sea and smote the agents of the Hitt-ites who dwelled upon the ship.
8) And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the land of In-ternet.
9) [to be continued for-ever]
They either overreacted to violence or they let themselves get drawn into something that lowers their standing internationally or both.
They've shown the 'weapons' recovered from the boat and while they're lethal they're exactly the items (kitchen knives, hammers, handles for stuff) that you'd expect on such a ship so if the military went in there NOT expecting they might get beat up by that sort of stuff then WTF?
If these were our soldiers doing this in Afghanistan or Iraq then our Government would be fucked over, not least by the families of the service personnel asking how their relatives were put into such danger by a command who should have known better in the first place.
Well, that's how it looks to me.
but they would say that, eh?
Turkish PM: "don't mess with the best, cos the best don't mess"
At the end of the day, I think it's pretty hard to exactly WARM to Israel no matter what happened here - as a state it's undeniably not a country particularly arsed about killing civilians on 'the other side', and there's always such belligerent amounts of spin afterwards... the whole thing is such a fucking ideological mess - somebody wrote a letter to the Evening Standard yesterday where they suggested the commandos were the victims here and had only been armed with paintball guns! While you've got ideological polarisation like that, even in probably not that informed London commuters, I think problems are going to ensue.
It's boring to point out, but while it's natural to get upset and angry about this, but it's always important to remember the whole mess is essentially our fault - the modern middle east is the result of Western fuckery, British in particular. I know it feels a bit abstract to take the blame or whatever 62 years on, but, y'know, it doesn't in all honesty feel like the situation has come on very far since then...
"Post-mortem examinations in Turkey revealed that 30 bullets had been found in the victims' bodies - one activist had four in the head.
Some of the details seem to contradict Israel's assertion that their commandos used minimum lethal force, the BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says. "
legally dubious international operations haven't been subject to one, and I'm sure wouldn't accept one.
Israel is in serious need of better PR people though. Or else it has a lot of people in power who really, really want to see the country destroyed.
to allow orthodox only units.
Rather than them suddenly deciding to take an active role.